ASTS vs SYM Stock Comparison
Compare ASTS and SYM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ASTS and SYM?
SYM leads the current stock comparison as Symbotic Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AST SpaceMobile, Inc. vs Symbotic Inc.
SYM leads
SYM leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ASTS on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support SYM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
AST SpaceMobile, Inc.
Symbotic Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SYM over ASTS, 36 versus 26 as of Sep 11, 2026. SYM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while ASTS holds the stronger value profile. SYM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ASTS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SYM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SYM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare AST SpaceMobile, Inc. and Symbotic Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ASTS and SYM against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality6 vs 42SYM +36
- Value34 vs 27ASTS +7
- Risk Resilience30 vs 36SYM +6
- Momentum37 vs 41SYM +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor SYM. SYM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; ASTS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
SYM's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ASTS and SYM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SYM (Symbotic Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ASTS (AST SpaceMobile, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 77.9% against 45%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
SYMSYM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ASTSASTS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ASTSASTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
SYMSYM on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
SYMSYM on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
ASTSASTS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SYM, analyst targets favor ASTS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ASTS | SYM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +62.3% | +43.6% | ASTS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.1% | +31.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SYM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SYM | 26 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | SYMon balance | revenue growth 113.9% vs 6.6%; EPS growth -16.7% vs 4.7%; TTM ROE -35.1% vs 2.2%; gross margin -14% vs 21.6%; operating margin -5.2% vs 1.2% — SYM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ASTS | Value 34 vs 27 |
| Technicals | SYM | Price vs 50-day -8.7% vs 0.4%; vs 200-day -26.5% vs -21.5% |
| Risk Resilience | SYM | Risk Resilience 30 vs 36 |
| Analyst expectations | ASTS | Target upside 62.3% vs 43.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ASTS and SYM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on SYM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SYM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SYM +10
- 26 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- SYM +16
- 24 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- SYM +5
- 30 vs 35
- 90 sessions ago
- SYM +11
- 25 vs 36
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 5 when SYM moved ahead of ASTS.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (24.33%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.62%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (24.79%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
SYM leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.51%, AIQ -5 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ASTS closes the Quality gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to SYM's edge.
- 2ASTS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
SYM leads on balance| Metric | ASTS | SYM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 113.9% | 6.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -16.7% | 4.7% |
| Gross margin | -14% | 21.6% |
| Operating margin | -5.2% | 1.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -35.1% | 2.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.58 | 0 |
Performance
SYM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ASTS | SYM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4% | 3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -19.4% | -0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -31.4% | -0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -32.1% | -19.4% |
| Year to date | -17.5% | -30.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 46.9% | -13.6% |
Technicals
SYM has the stronger structure| Metric | ASTS | SYM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.4 | 48.7 |
| ADX (14) | 12 | 9.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.7% | 0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -26.5% | -21.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 77.9% | 45% |
Risk
SYM is the more resilient| Metric | ASTS | SYM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.75 | 3.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.95 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.74 | 0.25 |
| Max drawdown | -60.1% | -56.2% |
| Current drawdown | -55% | -52.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 111.1% | 83.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -10.5% | -7.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ASTS or SYM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SYM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 36 against ASTS's 26. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. ASTS is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is ASTS or SYM the better buy right now?
SYM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SYM over ASTS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SYM leads Quality by 36 points; ASTS leads Value by 7 points; SYM leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ASTS or SYM?
Analyst price targets imply +62.3% upside for ASTS and +43.6% for SYM, so the Street currently favors ASTS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SYM. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ASTS or SYM?
ASTS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ASTS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, ASTS or SYM?
ASTS on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, ASTS or SYM?
SYM on the Momentum factor, by 4 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, ASTS or SYM?
SYM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SYM on Risk Resilience, by 6 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ASTS more profitable than SYM?
SYM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -14% vs 21.6%; operating margin -5.2% vs 1.2%; ttm roe -35.1% vs 2.2%.
Is SYM's lead over ASTS getting stronger or weaker?
SYM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-05, when SYM moved ahead of ASTS.
What would change the ASTS vs SYM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ASTS closes the Quality gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to SYM's edge; ASTS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SYM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ASTS and SYM?
ASTS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SYM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on ASTS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SYM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ASTS and SYM with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.